$++ 



:•' 



« °i 



,4* 



* • 0- o 



-y. 



A q, 



<.. 






6 <i » «$^wV':. 



saMrv. .~ .■*» 



Reply to Senator Bailey's Attack 

on Political Record 

of Robert J. Walker 



The following is the letter read at the Secretary'* desk in the United States* 
Senate, August 4, 1911, at the request of Senator Martine of New Jersey; objected to 
by Senator Bailey, as offensive to him: 

309 Hudson Street, 
Hoboken, New Jersey, July 25, 1911. 
Hon. James E. Martine, 

United States Senator from New Jersey, 
Washington, D. C. 
Dear Sir: 

I have just seen copies of the Congressional Record of July 12th and 19th, 1911, 
containing remarks made in the Senate of the United States by Senator Bailey of 
Texas, attacking my father, the late Robert J. Walker, and, especially, the accuracy 
oi statements made by him, in an open public letter published by Mr. Walker in 
1867, on the subject of tariff and finances, and further misquoting him and arraign- 
ing the historical accuracy of statements made by him in a pamphlet published by 
him. — Mr. Walker — on July 1, 1863, in London, in reply to a statement made by 
Honorable John Slidell, published in the London Times of March 23, 1863, in relation 
to the repudiation of the bonds of the Union and Planters banks by the State of Miss- 
issippi. 

Mr. Bailey proceeds to read Mr. Walker out of the Democratic party, stating 
inaccurately, that in 1867 Mr. Walker was holding an office under a republican ad' 
ministration. I desire to have the privilege, my father being dead, of making a state- 
ment for publication in the Congressional Record, which contained the erroneous 
statements referred to above. 

As to the letter of 1867: Mr. Walker did state in that letter as published — I 
have not the original — , that in his first report he favored free raw materials; mani- 
festly he could not have meant by that statement his first report as adopted and final- 
ly completed and sent to the Congress and published, but, as the Honorable John 
Sharp Williams, the distinguished and honored Senator from Mississippi, suggested 
in the same debate, referred to the first draft of his report of 1845; and that such is 
the correct interpretation of Mr. Walker's letter of 1867, I find confirmed by Presi- 
dent Polk's diary and by references made by Schouler and others from contemporary 
manuscripts. 

In the Polk diary, kept by the President during his entire incumbency of that 
office, I find several entries concerning the annual report of the Secretary of the 
Treasury of December 1845. Early in September, 1845, the President directed that 
each Cabinet Officer submit his proposed annual report not later than November 15, 
1845, for consultation and examination. On September 30, 1845, at a Cabinet meet- 
ing, as recorded in President Polk's diary, "a full conversation was held on the sub- 
ject of the tariff and the principles which should be embraced in the report of the 
Secretary of the Treasury." Again, on Tuesday, November 11, 1845, at a Cabinet 
meeting at which all of the members were present, "The Secretary read to the Cab- 
inet that portion of his annual report to Congress on the finances which related to 
the tariff and a reduction of duties. Mr. Buchanan expressed his objections to the 
doctrine which it contained. He remarked that it was a strong free trade document, 
and was in its doctrines opposed to his whole course on the subject during his entire 
life. The opinions of the Cabinet were not taken formally, as the Secretary of the 
Treasury said that he merely read it consultatively; an informal conversation took 
olace in reference to different parts of it" 

I find, further, that Mr. Buchanan stated that the two Pennsylvania Senators 



.1 

would oppose such legislation, and that Mr. Calhoun would not sustain the admin 
istration The two Pennsylvania Senators voted against the bill as it finally passed, 
and of the eighteen Democratic Representatives voting against the bill in the House, 
eleven were from Pennsylvania. Mr. Calhoun voted for the Tariff Bill of 1846, which 
was a considerable modification of the doctrines advocated by Secretary Walker in the 
reports submitted to the Cabinet. The bill passed the Senate on a third reading by 
the casting vote of Vice-President Dallas. 

Independent of these facts, 1 maintain that it can reasonably be claimed thai 
under the principles set forth in Mr. Walker's first published report raw materials 
might be put upon the free list under Rules 2 and 3 laid down in said report, wherein 
he says in Rule 2, "that no duty shall be imposed on any article above the lowest rate 
that will yield the largest amount of revenue," and under Rule 3. •'that below such 
rate discrimination may be made descending in the scale of duties, or for impera- 
tive reasons the article may be placed on the free list." 

It is a matter of common history that the Tariff Bill of 1S46 had a difficult pas- 
sage through the Senate even after it was modified so as to secure its enactment, and 
that Mr. Polk looked upon the fate of this measure as doubtful by reason of the 
intrigues of some Democratic Senators and the lukewarmness of others. That the 
four great measures of his administration — the extension of our boundaries to the 
Pacific Ocean, the reduction of tariff duties, the final settlement of the vexed North- 
western Boundary Dispute with Great Britain and the consummation of the annexation 
of Texas, which latter resulted in the War between the United States and Mexico — 
were all carried through successfully, was due to Mr. Polk's firmness and persevering 
industry. 

Now, Senator Bailey's remarkable assertion that Mr. Walker's statement made in 
his published letter of 1867 is to be discredited because he was holding an office 
under a republican administration, is strange doctrine; but the fact is otherwise. .Mr. 
Walker was at that time a private citizen and had never held office under a republican 
administration. Mr. Walker was from his youth to the time of his death a Demo- 
crat. Briefly stated, he began his political career in 1822, being then barely of age, 
as a Democrat, favoring Jackson for the Presidency and continued a Union Democrat 
up to the time of his death in 1869, his last public political acts being the drafting 
of the national democratic platform of 1868 and thesupport of Seymour and Blair, 
the Democratic nominees. He was twice elected by the Legislature of Mississippi to 
the Senate of the United States as a Union Democrat, making union speeches 
throughout the State of Mississippi in 1832, 1833 and other years. He drafted ma- 
terial parts of the National Democratic Platforms of 1840, 1844, 1848, 1852, 1856 
and 1868, and # in i860 stumped New Jersey for the fusion democratic ticket. He 
never held any office under any republican administration. He was sent abroad to 
the different commercial capitals in Europe in the Spring of 1863, where he remained 
until the fall of 1864, to promote the sale of United States bonds, which he success- 
fully accomplished, but declined to receive any compensation whatever for his ser- 
vices. A part only of his modest expenses in that service was reimbursed to him 
after the close of the War and after the vouchers had been examined and approved 
loth by the Auditor and the Comptroller of the Treasury. Mr. Walker did advocate 
the second election of Abraham Lincoln, but as a Union Democrat and not as a Re- 
publican, as did many other constitutional democrats — "If that be treason then make 
the most of it." For example, my dear Senator, would it not make any Jerseyman 
laugh to hear that Joel Parker, the great Democratic War Governor of New Jersey, 
was to be read out of the Democratic Party because he did everything he could do 
consistently with the Constitution to preserve the Union? 

But, says the Senator from Texas, substantially, Mr. Walker is not to be be- 
lieved because he favored the National Bank Act — an Act absolutely necessary in those 
War times to sustain the credit of the Government. Next we shall hear, I suppose, 
of some newer apostle of democracy reading John C. Calhoun out of the necrology 
of democracy because he voted for a national bank act of much less democratic na- 
ture than that of 1863, which Mr. Walker favored with an amendment making nation- 
al banking free to all. 



ated the immediate admission of the 
Union, claiming that they had never 
rtly after the infamous reconstruction 
rkey of Mississippi appeared in Wash- 
irgton and sought After consultation a bill was filed in 

the Supreme Court of the United States by them in the name of Mississippi, enjoining 
President Johnson from carrying out the reconstruction laws The Supreme Court 
refusing to restrain the President, .Mr. Walker asked that the military commander in 
the military district in which Mississippi was situated be enjoined from taking possess 
i« n of the property of the State of Mississippi. In justice to the memory of the 
Honorable A. H. Garland of Arkansas, afterwards Attorney General, I desire to say 
that he voluntarily appeared and assisted in the presentation of these cases The 
arguments in the cases, however, were made by Mr. Walker. For his services in 
these cases, he neither asked nor received any compensation; in fact, he paid all of 
the expenses of the litigation. In 1868, prior to the meeting of the National Demo- 
c Convention, Mr. Walker issued a circular containing a draft of a platform to be 
ted at that convention. Prior to the meeting of the convention Mr. Walker was 
requested by many prominent Southern delegates to come to New York for consulta- 
tion, which he did. The platform of the National Democratic Convention of 1S6S in 
its salient features was drawn up by Mr. Walker. Those planks in the platform 
which denounced the reconstruction acts of Congress as "usurpations, and unconsti- 
■il, revolutionary, and void * * * * were drawn u P by Mr. Walker, as was also 
the following declaration which was embodied in the platform: 

"In demanding these measures and reforms we arraign the Radical party for its 
disregard of right and the unparalleled oppression and tyranny which have marked 
its career. After the most solemn and unanimous pledge of both Houses of Con- 
s'"* ' !Cute the war exclusively for the maintenance of the Government and 
the preservation of the Union under the Constitution, it has repeatedly violated that 
sacred pledge * * *. Instead of restoring the Union, it has, so far as in its 
d it, and subjected ten States, in time of profound peace, to military 
despotism and negro supremacy * * * * 
So much for Mr. Walker's democracy. 

content with these charges and insinuations, the Senator from Texas to fur- 
ther discredit Mr. Walker's tariff views says that he never did anything else but pro- 
mulgate that tariff report in 1845. Has he read Mr. Walker's reports of 1846, 1847 
and isis, and has he forgotten that it was Robert J. Walker who drew up the amend- 
ed resolution (the amendment is in the files of the Senate in Mr. Walker's hand- 
writing) under which Texas was admitted to the Union. And has he forgotten the 
Texas annexation letter of 1844, for which, with other labors, Mr. Walker received 
thanks of the Texas convention? And this convention also ordered a bust of Mr. 
Walker to be executed by Hiram Powers, the famous American sculptor. 

Mr. Walker also advocated the purchase of Cuba, Alaska and the Islands of St. 
Thomas and St. John. 

I regret that Mr. Bailey has seen fit to introduce the repudiation question at this 
late day. Without having read Mr. Walker's London pamphlet on the subject, he 
misstates its contents. The pamphlet consisted mainly in the reproduction of two 
letters written at different times by Mr. Davis in 1849, the one first published in 
the Washington Union, the other in The Mississippian, and afterwards republished 
in The London Times, together with the decisions of the Mississppi Courts. Mr. 
Walker did not state that Mr. Davis was either in the Legislature of the State of 
Mississippi or the Governor thereof when the action was taken repudiating these 
bonds. 

Mr. Walker represented the State of Mississippi in the Senate of the United 
States for nine years. He was Secretary of the Treasury for four years. While he 
was Senator and while he was Secretary of the Treasury he abandoned the practice of 
law. He never during his incumbency of these offices appeared in any case, certainly 
he never appeared in any case against the Government of the United States or against 
the state of Mississippi, or against the people of Mississippi, in any capacity, either 



directly or indirectly. After he had severed his connection with the United 5 
as Secretary of the Treasury, he resumed the practice of his profession as a law, .. 
In the New Almaden Quicksilver Mine case referred to by Mr. Claiborne in his His- 
tory of Mississippi and quoted approvingly by Mr. Bailey, Mr. Walker did not takt 
the case on a contingent fee. He owned the subject matter in litigation. He fought 
the case in all the lower courts and when it was appealed to the Supreme Court of thf 
United States he argued it there and obtained the favorable decision of that grea 
tribunal. Mr. Walker while in office neither practiced law nor influence. In somt 
quarters the latter seems to be considered professional. To all such practices Mr. 
Walker was opposed. 

Very respectfully, 

DUNCAN S. WALKER. 

The letter having been read, Senator Bailey moved that it be stricken from the 
Record. 

(EXTRACTS FROM DEBATE IN SENATE) 

Mr. MART1NE of New Jersey. Mr. President, I trust that the Senator's motion 
will not prevail. I insist, in all fairness, that the letter read is not only a touching 
and forcible tribute from a loyal and loving son, but a splendid defense of a loving 
father. 1 insist that the sheer statement of the Senator from Texas that it is untrue 
is not adequate. These assertions are made by a gentleman responsible for all he says, 
who is an honored and dignified son of the Commonwealth from which I come. I 
submit further, Mr. President, that I thought the distinguished Senator went out of 
his way to traduce and make small the memory of that great Democrat and public 
servant, the Hon. Robert J Walker, when he came in the day after his first speech 
on reciprocity and offered further data in the way of a pamphlet to prove that this 
gentleman, who had done honored service to his country, was not a Democrat The 
question was not a partisan one; it was not whether Robert J Walker was a Democrat 
or whether he was not. The controversy at issue at the time the Senator offered 
the pamphlet legarding Robert J Walker was upon the great, broad, moral question of 
reciprocity, not as to what was the politics of Robert J. Walker, I trust in all sin- 
cerity, I trust in all earnestness and deference, that you, Senators, as fair-minded, lib- 
eral, honorable, and brave men, will not now move further to traduce and belittle the 
memory of the honored citizen and splendid Democrat, Robert J Walker 

Mr BAILEY Mr Pres'dent, I am no more inclined to reply to the Senator from 
New Jersey than 1 am to that private citizen, 

Mr. THORNTON. Mr. President, I wish to inquire of the Senator from Texas 
whether, under the circumstances, he would conisder the publication of this letter 
\r. the Record as being personally offensive to him? Is that the ground upon which 
he objects? 

Mr. BAILEY. Mr. President, I think it would be offensive to the Senate for a 
citizen to undertake to answer a Senator's speech and to assert that the Senator had 
misrepresented the facts in any case. I believe that would be offensive to any Senator 
in this body, and I know it is offensive to me. 



Senator Bailey's motion prevailing, the undersigned being thus denied a 
hearing in the Senate, has no redress but to appeal to the public press for a hearing. 
He submits that the statements made by him are of public history in nearly each asser- 
tion and are true, and asks the public to judge of the course pursued by Mr. Bailey 
in making insinuations against the political record of a deceased statesman, which 
were not true, and in no way relevant to the subject matter in debate, and 
then closing the doors to their refutation in the forum where made. 

Mark Mr. Bailey's closing words: " I am no more inclined to reply to the Sen- 
ator from New Jersey than to that private citizen." 

Was it manly? 

Was it fair? 



DUNCAN S. 



LKER. 



**■?■ ' 



%. 






\\* 



V 






J* 



A \ 












u 



.0 



0^«v 



f/ ^ 



v<* 






> V 



w 



,0 



^ 



s\ V ^fi. 



"V 



^v* 







€^ 



